Saturday, February 09, 2013

If he was able to think straight he'd have worked out that he could buy a small property in rural NZ, claim more in dole payments as a result, and get the taxpayer to pay his mortgage through the accommodation supplement. By 65 it'd be paid off and he'd be collecting Super. Having learned to live off the smell of an oily rag he'd then be able to save and travel on his Super as well as keep his house as his nest egg for "a rainy day."

May as well go down that track because the way he looks after himself - or fails to - he's not going to work again.

Friday, February 08, 2013

A new book about NZ's rising inequality is due to be published in May this year. It's by Wellington journalist Max Rashbrooke. He wrote an article for an international project known as Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) which is here. Gives you an idea of how the book will pan out.

In New Zealand, a widening gap between the rich and the rest
threatens many of the country's greatest strengths, writes Max
Rashbrooke, who argues for a new settlement of welfare...

New Zealand's recent
history has been marked by an increasingly punitive approach towards
beneficiaries, despite evidence of their strong work ethic and desire to
fill jobs if they are available.

A more
humane – and ultimately more productive – approach would be to invest in
them as well, by increasing benefits to enable them to participate
better in society, and by matching that with greater investment in
personalised retraining and job placement programmes, in order to tackle
the low skills that prevent many from rejoining the workforce. This
could be funded by higher – and thus fairer – taxes on those who have
done well while enjoying the benefits of our common investment in roads,
healthcare, education and other public services.

Wednesday, February 06, 2013

I'm certain beneficiaries are discriminatedagainst. But it isn't usually the state doing the discriminating because the law makes that almost impossible. It's employers, landlords, retailers, service providers etc discriminating.

But here's another angle to consider. Aren't beneficiaries sometimes discriminated in favour of?

Landlords who prioritise guaranteed rent payments may prefer someone receiving a rent subsidy every week. A secondhand goods dealer may prefer a beneficiary buyer who qualifies for a WINZ grant. A youth employer may prefer a young candidate who has been through one of Work and Income's training courses or mentored by a contracted organisation.

It's conceivable that some employers may even prefer to employ someone on a benefit because of their particular type of social conscience eg the beneficiary needs a job more than the already employed applicant.

Some beneficiaries have been able to jump public waiting lists for surgery to enable them to regain capacity to work. Beneficiaries with children will take priority on Housing NZ waiting lists.

And here's an uncomfortable but feasible stretch. Female beneficiaries in the market for a partner might find potential mates discriminate in their favour because they have a secure income and home (after a fashion).

There's always more ways to look at circumstances than the one stuck under your nose by a self-interested party.

Tuesday, February 05, 2013

I was sent a a book of columns by Jamie Whyte, who is guest speaker at ACT's conference in a couple of weeks. The first few columns (all I've read so far) are very entertaining. For instance, in The Good Life With David Cameron, published in the Wall St Journal, he questions the idea of using divorce statistics as a factor in the calculation of Gross National Happiness (the newfangled alternative to GDP) when his own divorce contributed to his personal happiness. Ultimately, what business does government have trying to measure such things anyway? Along with economist Eric Crampton of the unusually sane Offsetting Behaviour blog, two very apt speakers for an ACT Conference:

Media Advisory

ACT’s Line of Speakers to the Annual Conference on Saturday 23 February at Gibbs Farm, Kaukapakapa

Keynote addresses:

Jamie Whyte
- Head of Research and Publishing at the management consultancy firm
Oliver Wyman, a fellow of the Institute of Economic Affairs and a senior
fellow of the Adam Smith Institute.

....any enquiries should go to info@act.org.nz. Or 09 523 0470.Lunch
is provided in the rego price and there will be a shuttle leaving
Newmarket to the Farm and return also. That will save people having to
drive there if they don’t want to do that.

Low
MSD uptake figures confirm that the contraception programme
instigated as part of National’s welfare reforms is all
about stigmatising woman on benefits, rather than any
genuine kind of support, says Auckland Action Against
Poverty spokesperson Sarah Thompson.
“This policy is
simply another weapon in the war against women on benefits,
implemented as a way of garnering the beneficiary bashing
vote in time for the next election.
“It's a deep irony
that the outright misogyny of recent welfare reforms,
including this one, has been lead by two women- Paula
Bennett and Paula Rebstock.

Can we also have a companion press release calling the offer of free vasectomies to male beneficiaries "war against men on benefits" and "misandry"?

“This blaming and shaming
tactic can be seen in other proposed policies which attempt
to paint beneficiaries as drug users and criminals who don't
care for their children."

Thousands of beneficiaries are drug users and criminals. Whether they care for their children, who knows. And whether their idea of 'care' is the same as my idea of care is another point to ponder.

Comments policy

About Me

Lindsay Mitchell has been researching and commenting on welfare since 2001. Many of her articles have been published in mainstream media and she has appeared on radio,tv and before select committees discussing issues relating to welfare. Lindsay is also an artist who works under commission and exhibits at Wellington, New Zealand, galleries.